World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
84
Citations
34118
World Ranking
14902
National Ranking
77

Uwe Siebert publication distribution in Medicine in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Medicine in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Uwe Siebert sits on this spectrum.

101–120 publications: 5 scientists 121–140 publications: 26 scientists 141–160 publications: 73 scientists 161–180 publications: 155 scientists 181–200 publications: 230 scientists 201–220 publications: 363 scientists 221–240 publications: 487 scientists 241–260 publications: 545 scientists 261–280 publications: 722 scientists 281–300 publications: 768 scientists 301–320 publications: 834 scientists 321–340 publications: 895 scientists 341–360 publications: 922 scientists 361–380 publications: 838 scientists 381–400 publications: 861 scientists 401–420 publications: 918 scientists 421–440 publications: 806 scientists 441–460 publications: 771 scientists 461–480 publications: 751 scientists 481–500 publications: 713 scientists 501–520 publications: 617 scientists 521–540 publications: 611 scientists 541–560 publications: 537 scientists 561–580 publications: 504 scientists 581–600 publications: 509 scientists 601–620 publications: 396 scientists 621–640 publications: 386 scientists 641–660 publications: 371 scientists 661–680 publications: 340 scientists 681–700 publications: 336 scientists 701–720 publications: 307 scientists 721–740 publications: 259 scientists 741–760 publications: 230 scientists 761–780 publications: 228 scientists 781–800 publications: 217 scientists 801–820 publications: 204 scientists 821–840 publications: 186 scientists 841–860 publications: 177 scientists 861–880 publications: 155 scientists 881–900 publications: 139 scientists 901–920 publications: 145 scientists 921–940 publications: 116 scientists 941–960 publications: 133 scientists 961–980 publications: 91 scientists 981–1,000 publications: 96 scientists 1,001–1,020 publications: 77 scientists 1,021–1,040 publications: 70 scientists 1,041–1,060 publications: 63 scientists 1,061–1,080 publications: 77 scientists 1,081–1,100 publications: 49 scientists 1,101–1,120 publications: 54 scientists 1,121–1,140 publications: 49 scientists 1,141–1,160 publications: 51 scientists 1,161–1,180 publications: 35 scientists 1,181–1,200 publications: 39 scientists 1,201–1,220 publications: 26 scientists 1,221–1,240 publications: 37 scientists 1,241–1,260 publications: 36 scientists 1,261–1,280 publications: 27 scientists 1,281–1,300 publications: 32 scientists 1,301–1,320 publications: 28 scientists 1,321–1,340 publications: 17 scientists 1,341–1,360 publications: 30 scientists 1,361–1,380 publications: 28 scientists 1,381–1,400 publications: 17 scientists 1,401–1,420 publications: 21 scientists 1,421–1,440 publications: 15 scientists 1,441–1,460 publications: 12 scientists 1,461–1,480 publications: 12 scientists 1,481–1,500 publications: 18 scientists 1,501–1,520 publications: 14 scientists 1,521–1,540 publications: 17 scientists 1,541–1,560 publications: 15 scientists 1,561–1,580 publications: 6 scientists 1,581–1,600 publications: 2 scientists 1,601–1,620 publications: 12 scientists 1,621–1,640 publications: 11 scientists 1,641–1,660 publications: 8 scientists 1,661–1,680 publications: 5 scientists 1,681–1,700 publications: 5 scientists 1,701–1,720 publications: 10 scientists 1,721–1,740 publications: 12 scientists 1,741–1,760 publications: 14 scientists 1,761–1,780 publications: 6 scientists 1,781–1,795 publications: 5 scientists 1,796+ publications: 100 scientists
101 publications 1,796+

This scientist: 609 publications — 73rd percentile

73% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 1,796 publications or more.

Uwe Siebert D-index placement in Medicine in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Medicine scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Uwe Siebert sits on this spectrum.

70–71 D-Index: 226 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 391 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 574 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 730 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 891 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 972 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 1,027 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 1,003 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 960 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 970 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 922 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 839 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 808 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 779 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 668 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 611 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 630 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 513 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 541 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 445 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 429 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 400 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 393 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 318 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 302 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 287 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 255 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 256 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 252 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 230 scientists 130–131 D-Index: 179 scientists 132–133 D-Index: 168 scientists 134–135 D-Index: 163 scientists 136–137 D-Index: 159 scientists 138–139 D-Index: 134 scientists 140–141 D-Index: 134 scientists 142–143 D-Index: 118 scientists 144–145 D-Index: 109 scientists 146–147 D-Index: 106 scientists 148–149 D-Index: 74 scientists 150–151 D-Index: 79 scientists 152–153 D-Index: 80 scientists 154–155 D-Index: 87 scientists 156–157 D-Index: 57 scientists 158–159 D-Index: 74 scientists 160–161 D-Index: 69 scientists 162–163 D-Index: 60 scientists 164–165 D-Index: 53 scientists 166–167 D-Index: 39 scientists 168–169 D-Index: 42 scientists 170–171 D-Index: 32 scientists 172–173 D-Index: 39 scientists 174–175 D-Index: 40 scientists 176–177 D-Index: 28 scientists 178–179 D-Index: 19 scientists 180–181 D-Index: 23 scientists 182–183 D-Index: 31 scientists 184–185 D-Index: 18 scientists 186–187 D-Index: 20 scientists 188–189 D-Index: 22 scientists 190–191 D-Index: 13 scientists 192–193 D-Index: 21 scientists 194–195 D-Index: 12 scientists 196–197 D-Index: 12 scientists 198–199 D-Index: 14 scientists 200–201 D-Index: 15 scientists 202–203 D-Index: 13 scientists 204–205 D-Index: 10 scientists 206–207 D-Index: 8 scientists 208–209 D-Index: 4 scientists 210–211 D-Index: 12 scientists 212–213 D-Index: 11 scientists 214–215 D-Index: 10 scientists 216 D-Index: 4 scientists 217+ D-Index: 98 scientists
70 D-Index 217+

This scientist: 84 D-Index — 27th percentile

27% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 217 D-Index or more.

Overview

Uwe Siebert is affiliated with UMIT Tirol - Private University for Health Sciences and Health Technology in Austria. Their research primarily spans the field of Medicine, with significant focus on several subfields including Economics and Econometrics, Oncology, General Health Professions, Epidemiology, and Surgery.

The scientist's main research topics cover:

  • Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • COVID-19 epidemiological studies
  • Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
  • Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
  • Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Opioid Use Disorder Treatment

Uwe Siebert has published extensively in venues including:

  • Value in Health
  • Das Gesundheitswesen
  • BMJ Open
  • PubMed
  • Medical Decision Making

Coauthors frequently collaborating with Uwe Siebert include:

  • Beate Jahn
  • Gaby Sroczynski
  • Sibylle Puntscher
  • Ursula Rochau
  • Marjan Arvandi

Selected recent publications feature the following works:

  • "Quarantine alone or in combination with other public health measures to control COVID-19: a rapid review" (2020), published in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
  • "Quarantine alone or in combination with other public health measures to control COVID-19: a rapid review" (2020), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (second version)
  • "Effect of Vitamin D Supplementation, Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation, or a Strength-Training Exercise Program on Clinical Outcomes in Older Adults" (2020), published in JAMA
  • "Being Precise About Precision Medicine: What Should Value Frameworks Incorporate to Address Precision Medicine? A Report of the Personalized Precision Medicine Special Interest Group" (2020), published in Value in Health
  • "Determinants of willingness to pay for health services: a systematic review of contingent valuation studies" (2022), published in The European Journal of Health Economics

Best Publications

  • Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention

    Bernard De Bruyne;Uwe Siebert;Fumiaki Ikeno;Volker Klauss

  • Modeling good research practices--overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-1.

    J. Jaime Caro;Andrew H. Briggs;Uwe Siebert;Karen M. Kuntz

  • Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Guiding Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: 2-Year Follow-Up of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) Study

    Nico H.J. Pijls;William F. Fearon;Pim A.L. Tonino;Uwe Siebert;Uwe Siebert

  • State-transition modeling: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force--3.

    Uwe Siebert;Uwe Siebert;Oguzhan Alagoz;Ahmed M. Bayoumi;Beate Jahn

  • Quarantine alone or in combination with other public health measures to control COVID-19: a rapid review.

    Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit;Verena Mayr;Andreea Iulia Dobrescu;Andrea Chapman

  • The Effect of Electronic Prescribing on Medication Errors and Adverse Drug Events: A Systematic Review

    Elske Ammenwerth;Petra Schnell-Inderst;Christof Machan;Uwe Siebert

  • Prevalence and incidence of Parkinson's disease in Europe.

    Sonja von Campenhausen;Bernhard Bornschein;Regina Wick;Kai Bötzel

  • Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions.

    Michael F. Drummond;J. Sanford Schwartz;Bengt Jönsson;Bryan R. Luce

  • Economic Evaluation of Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Multivessel Disease

    William F. Fearon;Bernhard Bornschein;Pim A.L. Tonino;Raffaella M. Gothe

  • Long-Term Outcome After Stroke Evaluating Health-Related Quality of Life Using Utility Measurements

    Caroline Haacke;Astrid Althaus;Annika Spottke;Uwe Siebert

  • Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: approaches to mitigate bias and confounding in the design of nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report--Part II.

    Emily Cox;Bradley C. Martin;Tjeerd Van Staa;Edeltraut Garbe

  • Economic burden of stroke: a systematic review on post-stroke care.

    S Rajsic;H Gothe;H H Borba;G Sroczynski

  • HCV-related burden of disease in Europe: a systematic assessment of incidence, prevalence, morbidity, and mortality

    Nikolai Mühlberger;Ruth Schwarzer;Beate Lettmeier;Gaby Sroczynski

  • Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: analytic methods to improve causal inference from nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report--Part III.

    Michael L. Johnson;William Crown;Bradley C. Martin;Colin R. Dormuth

  • Coronary pressure measurement after stenting predicts adverse events at follow-up: A multicenter registry

    Nico H.J. Pijls;Volker Klauss;Uwe Siebert;Eric Powers

  • Diagnostic and clinical value of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies compared with rheumatoid factor isotypes in rheumatoid arthritis

    I Vallbracht;J Rieber;M Oppermann;F Förger

  • Resistance training in the treatment of the metabolic syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of resistance training on metabolic clustering in patients with abnormal glucose metabolism.

    Barbara Strasser;Uwe Siebert;Uwe Siebert;Wolfgang Schobersberger

  • Presentation, diagnosis, and management of multiple system atrophy in Europe: Final analysis of the European multiple system atrophy registry

    Martin Köllensperger;Felix Geser;Jean Pierre Ndayisaba;Sylvia Boesch

  • Mercury as a serious health hazard for children in gold mining areas.

    Stephan Bose-O’Reilly;Beate Lettmeier;Beate Lettmeier;Raffaella Matteucci Gothe;Christian Beinhoff

  • Dynamic Transmission Modeling: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-5

    Richard Pitman;David Fisman;Gregory S. Zaric;Maarten Postma

Frequent Co-Authors

Richard Dodel
Richard Dodel University of Duisburg-Essen
John B. Wong
John B. Wong Tufts University
Peter Hillemanns
Peter Hillemanns Hannover Medical School
Wolfgang H. Oertel
Wolfgang H. Oertel Philipp University of Marburg
Achim Schneider
Achim Schneider University of Ulm
William F. Fearon
William F. Fearon Stanford University
Karen M. Kuntz
Karen M. Kuntz University of Minnesota
Bernard De Bruyne
Bernard De Bruyne Cardiovascular Center Aalst
Nico H.J. Pijls
Nico H.J. Pijls Eindhoven University of Technology
Wolfgang Greiner
Wolfgang Greiner Bielefeld University

If you think any of the details on this page are incorrect, let us know.

Report an issue

We appreciate your kind effort to assist us to improve this page, it would be helpful providing us with as much detail as possible in the text box below:

Related Online Degrees & Career Pathways

If you’re passionate about medicine but interested in alternative or complementary career paths, a wide range of online degrees can help you enter allied fields in healthcare. One popular route is pursuing a healthcare administration degree online accredited—ideal for those who wish to lead medical teams, manage clinics, or oversee hospital operations.

Another common pathway for registered nurses is to bridge into advanced practice. Many opt for adn to fnp programs, which can help accelerate the process of becoming a Family Nurse Practitioner and expand clinical skills while studying online.

For those interested in patient wellness and nutrition education, pursuing one of the best online nutrition programs offers expertise in dietary science and opens up diverse job opportunities in both public health and private practice.

Aspiring healthcare leaders can also benefit from enrolling in cahme accredited mha online programs, which provide recognized qualifications for managing health organizations and advancing industry standards.

These online degrees provide flexibility, career mobility, and specialized skills that complement or expand upon a traditional medical education in the USA.

Best Scientists Citing Uwe Siebert

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles